Expert opinion: Rus' may not have a Norman origin

One of the versions of the origin of Ancient Rus' boils down to the fact that the state of the Eastern Slavs was created by some Varangians, or, as they are also called, the Normans.

However, according to some experts, story Rus' is not so unambiguous and to this day is the subject of active discussion.

For example, Sergey Perevezentsev, Doctor of Historical Sciences, stated on the air of the Traces of Empire program that the word "Rus" does not have to have Norman roots.

As the expert put it, Rus' was in Normandy, but at the same time, as many as four Rus were in the Baltics, and there was even a certain “Rusika” in North Africa. Thus, in his opinion, it is rather a debatable concept that is not tied to a specific ethnic group.

In addition, according to Perevezentsev, the same Varangian prince Rurik, who is credited with creating statehood in Rus', for some reason founded a city with the Slavic name Novgorod, spoke the Slavic language and worshiped the Slavic gods: Perun and Veles. Thus, his Norman origin is also in question.

Alexander Uzhankov, Doctor of Philology, agreed with Perevezentsev's opinion, recalling that the Tale of Bygone Years says that the descendants of Noah the Righteous lived in Rus', that is, the biblical people.

Uzhankov also noted that in the ancient Russian chronicles there is such a wording: "language means people and speech."

The expert noted that Russ and Ruthenians spoke the Slavic language, and, therefore, belonged to the Slavic people.

Thus, the version with the Norman origin of the Slavs is extremely controversial.

As a matter of fact, it is also difficult to consider other versions reliable. Indeed, many facts about the origin of Rus' for a long time were passed from mouth to mouth, which means that they may turn out to be nothing more than legends.

Comments

[Blacksmith 55]

What actually the difference where Rus' came from.
Geography cannot be changed, and Russia cannot be sent to Mars either.
It turns out that we must coexist together, whether anyone wants it or not.

[cold wind]

In general, what difference does it make for Russia where Rus' came from? These formations do not coincide not territorially, not mentally, not according to the national composition, even the religion is different.
Yes, for Russia, Rus' is one of the ancestors, but Russia is the direct legal successor of the Golden Horde, it’s just that the capital moved from near Astrakhan to Moscow, from one Horde city to another. A complete coincidence is territorial, national, cultural, mental.
Rus' underlies the 4 countries of Ukraine, Poland, Belarus (GDL), Russia. It had the least impact on Russia.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote from cold wind

but Russia is the direct successor of the Golden Horde

still to find out what the golden horde is

[cold wind]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

still to find out what the golden horde is

Feudal Union State, uniting the Slavic, Turkic and Finno-Ugric tribes after the collapse of the Mongol Empire. It was located on the territory of modern Russia, the Sea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbAzov and northern Kazakhstan.
It completely coincides with the territorial claims of modern Russia, because these are primordially Horde lands.

The map shows the main parts of the Golden Horde: the Great Horde, the State of Uzbeks, the Moscow kingdom. This formation fell apart on them until the reunification of these territories by Ivan the Terrible.

[ch28k38]

The original Horde lands are northern Mongolia.

[gsev]

Quote from cold wind

Feudal Union State, uniting the Slavic, Turkic and Finno-Ugric tribes after the collapse of the Mongol Empire.

Horde is translated into Russian army. In reality, this is a gang that robbed everyone they could. Rekiter-godfathers can be killed for equating them with the cormorants they robbed. In the same way, the hordes, even the Crimean Tatar, even the Golden, even the Great, have nothing to do with either the Russian state and civilization or the Finno-Ugric world. During the pacification of the Caucasus, the leaders of the local gangs often suggested that some Russian generals go with them to a joint recruitment against another Russian general. This is the state these hordes are. Although at the slightest weakening of the law enforcement functions of the state in the country, various gangs are instantly created to rob like the Lyubertsy and Tambov gangs or simply kill and maim like skinheads and antifa.

[Alex priest]

Russia has always grown with the lands of those whom it defeated and subjugated. So it was and always will be. One day Russia will be many times larger than it was in 1913.

[Jager]

And there was no Rus before the Horde? That's the news. Someone studied according to Ukrainian textbooks.

[Bayun]

Golden Horde = Great Tartaria. Genghis Khan - medieval "Stalin".

The Moghuls have as much "in common" with the Mongols as the Austrians have with the Australians.

The western outskirts, as they were traitor separatists, have remained so. The cunning Poles accepted Jewishness so as not to be serfs, and the non-Russians mixed with the Polovtsy-Khazars-Pechenegs. Nomads, then, what now - the state is unnecessary: ​​if anything, they will rush with the whole "camp" to Canada and Australia and forget the name of themselves.

[alekseykabanets]

Quote from cold wind

but Russia is the direct successor of the Golden Horde, it’s just that the capital moved from near Astrakhan to Moscow

Why not from Karokarum? Tomorrow we will argue with x_o_x_l_a_m_i who was the first to start digging the Black Sea? And then maybe we’ll swing to the Mediterranean?

[gsev]

Quote from cold wind

In general, what difference does it make for Russia where Rus' came from?

History is the science of truth and lies. There are about 7 theories about the origin of the Russian state. If we approach this issue scientifically, then we must talk about all the theories and all the arguments confirming and refuting each of these theories. Norman is accepted by many major historians as the most reliable, but others have the right to exist. Chivilikhin wrote beautifully in the late 1980s, but in his polemic with Gumilyov he was greatly mistaken, arguing that Gumilyov was very mistaken in asserting that the age of civilization is 600 years old and it is unthinkable to expect, according to Chivilikhin, the collapse of Russian civilization 600 years after it began the day of the Battle of Kulikovo .

[Alex priest]

Not at all. There is no Rus' and Rurik's northern and imperial Russia, neither in Ukraine, nor in Belarus, and even more so in Poland. The genesis of Russia is directly northern and goes back to Novgorod and Staraya Ladoga, from where the Russians with Rurik and the North Wind came as conquerors to the southern Khazar Kyiv. The trade route "From the Varangians to the Greeks" was almost a complete analogue of the modern Nord Stream. It is this Russia that has overcome all challenges and conquered all rivals and competitors, including, and above all, the steppe Horde, and then all the strongest armies and empires of every century.

[Doctor]

Yes, for Russia, Rus' is one of the ancestors, but Russia is the direct legal successor of the Golden Horde, it’s just that the capital moved from near Astrakhan to Moscow, from one Horde city to another. A complete coincidence is territorial, national, cultural, mental.

Yep, complete. It remains for all Russians to make an incision in the eyes, like the Mongols.

[Andrey A]

It will be for you: in the Russian Federation, a much larger territory goes back to Ancient Rus' than in Ukraine, Belarus and Poland combined. So, territorially, Russia goes back to Ancient Rus', especially since historically Russia included both present-day Ukraine and Belarus and even Poland ... Already at an early stage, Rus' became Orthodox (in 988, although the first attempts to spread Christianity were also earlier), so mentally we are very similar to Kievan Rus, in contrast to the West, where the Uniates and, moreover, Catholic Poland prevail ... And so, let me remind you: it was in Russia that the ancient Russian chronicles were preserved, Ukrainian chronicles begin, practically, with era of the Cossacks, they know almost nothing about the first Russian princes ... Old Russian epics have been preserved in the Russian north, there is nothing like it in Ukraine, there the storytellers talked about the Cossack Mamai, about Ilya Muromets, Alyosha Popovich and Dobrynya Nikitich, they don’t remember anything .. Ancient fairy tales have been preserved in Russia, in Ukraine fairy tales tell about a Cossack, pan and hell, it is in Russian fairy tales that archaic ones appear: Koschei the Immortal, Vasilisa the Wise, etc. la architectural monuments of Ancient Rus': the same Golden Gates of Kyiv were restored, taking the Golden Gates of Vladimir as a model ... And the St. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv and other temples are almost completely a remake, and more recently, compare the St. Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod with this, it only a few years younger than Kyiv, but its appearance has been preserved almost in its original form, the same can be said about other cathedrals: Novgorod, Vladimir, Suzdal, Rostov, Ladoga, Pskov, Intercession on the Nerl, etc. ... I no longer I’m talking about the fact that the Russian aristocracy also lived in Russia - the descendants of Rurik, the Rurikovichs ... But in Ukraine they died out .... Well, and, finally, the Russian language: the Old Novgorod dialect, to which the Russian language dates back, is fixed from the 10th century , nothing of the kind can be said about "movie" ...

[Terran ghost]

Quote from cold wind

but Russia is the direct successor of the Golden Horde

Complete nonsense, of course. The Grand Duchy of Moscow, and then the Russian Kingdom formed on its basis, correlated with the Golden Horde as a colony with a colonizing state.
So, to assert that the Russian Tsardom and the Russian Empire (1721-1917) that arose later on its basis were the "direct successors" of the Golden Horde, from a historical point of view, this is approximately how to assert that present-day India is the direct successor of the British Empire o.O

[cold wind]

You are confusing two different state entities. Mongol Empire and Golden Horde.
The Horde, after the collapse of the Mongol Empire, had formal vassal relations with the center of the empire, but it lived on its own.
The principalities that were part of the so-called Kievan Rus were direct vassals of the Horde Khan, called in Rus' the Tsar. They received a label to rule and paid an exit, they also participated in the election of the Horde king and the inner life of the feudal state. For example, in the war of the legitimate rulers of the horde against the impostor Mamai.
This is the period of feudalism, not modern times. An example with colonies is not appropriate here. the institution of the modern (modern time) state was absent. Accordingly, everything that I wrote makes Rus' and the Golden Horde a single feudal state, exactly the same as the Kingdom of France or the Holy Roman Empire. Where the base was a personal vassalage.

[Terran ghost]

Quote from cold wind

The principalities that were part of the so-called Kievan Rus were direct vassals of the Horde Khan, called in Rus' the Tsar.

The Horde khans were indeed called "kings", but this was not a term specifically for this title. They were called that by analogy with the Byzantine emperors (basileus). For the ancient Slavic (and later Russian) word "tsar" is an abbreviation for the title "Caesar", which was used precisely by the Byzantine emperors.

Quote from cold wind

They received a label to rule and paid an exit, they also participated in the election of the Horde king and the inner life of the feudal state.

The Russian princes who found themselves under the yoke of the Horde were indeed forced to receive a label. As well as the rulers of other lands, who found themselves under the yoke of the Mongol Empire or one of its fragments. Of course, they had almost nothing to do with the election of the Khan. Even in theory, they did not allow them to claim this title, at least confession of a religion other than the state religion for the Golden Horde.

[Alex priest]

Not at all. The genesis of Russia is northwestern, Baltic, the country has a northern origin. Rurik - the first Russian prince, Staraya Ladoga - the first capital, Novgorod - the second capital. Southern Kyiv in those days was under the Khazars for centuries, and it was from the Khazars that the Russians took it. The horde was moving from the southeast, from the exact opposite direction.

[Real Pilot]

On the one hand, it would be necessary to know the historical truth. It's so exciting...

Probably the Norman theory has some foundation.
For example, the invited prince adopted the local religion and followed the customs. We have a constitution, state symbols. And, assuming the presidency, the people's choice does not put his nationality in the foreground and does not rename everything - just like that alleged prince, he becomes a "hired manager." This is to the continuity of the local culture.

And, on the other hand, it is not worth it for everyone to invent new historical myths together. People who lived many years ago and left us chronological records were clearly closer to historical reality, if only because of the prescription.
Who better describes the history of the Great Patriotic War or the Patriotic War of 1812: we or our descendants in 1000 years? There, life will be different, and the vision of the world, too.

Again, inflating such discussions breeds excesses. Madness like "great ukrov", etc. are born.
Therefore, the description of historical events must be treated responsibly. For destroying the people's memory, we can only replace it with regular myths!

[ch28k38]

The Norman theory appeared in the 18th century among German scientists working in Russia. If we turn to the main source - PVL, then Dans, Svei, Norgs and Varangians are mentioned among the neighboring peoples, which immediately raises doubts that the Varangians are Scandinavians. Further, the Danes and Swedes settled on the northern shores of the Baltic, and the southern ones - Pomeranian Slavs and Celts, the sea was then called the Varangian. The functions of the prince at that time were far from autocracy, in Novgorod there was powerful self-government, and the functions of the prince were a regular army and an independent court. So one had to be idiots to call on the reign of a man of a foreign language and who did not know the usual Slavic law. The 9th century is the heyday of the Viking Age, so it was natural to invite the prince with a squad with experience in naval battles. These conditions were most suitable for a prince - a Slav from the southern coast of the Baltic.

[ch28k38]

I add: the Normanists mentioned a certain Norwegian (!!!) tribe Rus, which could not be found. The late writer V. Chivilikhin suggested that "Rus" is the root of a lost word, which has the same root as a channel and a mermaid and is associated with water. Since the ancestors of the Slavs moved from the Black Sea steppes along the rivers, the only available routes in dense forests, both in summer and winter, and settled along the banks of the rivers, this assumption seems logical

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: RealPilot

For example, the invited prince adopted the local religion and followed the customs.

A highly controversial assumption. It was not "Rurik" who beat him with his forehead, they beat him with his forehead. Therefore, he had no reason to change his Thor for our Perun.

[Alex priest]

In those days there were no Constitutions, but there was a tradition and the holy faith of ancestors, holy stones, the language of ancestors, traditions and legends of ancestors, the names of the Gods and rituals of worshiping them, and this was developed most pronouncedly among the princes and squads.

[Pravodel]

Dear Blacksmith 55, there is a difference, and a very big one.
The roots of the Norman theory of the origin of Rus' are Germans and Swedes. And right after this:
the Slavs - the Russians could not do anything, the gay Europeans came and taught them everything ...
Just to recognize the Slavs, Russians as subhuman ...
Therefore, the question of the origin of Rus' is the most important for Rus' itself and Russia.
Moreover, read Western history. There you will find a lot of "evidence" that the Slavs who lived in Rus' were completely illiterate, lived in dugouts, did not know how to build houses, etc. And the gay people came and taught everything. And therefore, the Russians are the wrong people, who themselves cannot do anything without enlightened gay Europeans, who must constantly teach and guide them - Russians ... Does this something constantly repeating in history between Russia and Europe remind you!? ...

[Alex priest]

Where did Rus'-Russia come from and there are no questions: she was born in Staraya Ladoga and from the north-west took control of all the lands up to Kamchatka.

[rocket757]

Expert opinion: Rus' may not have a Norman origin

. That's the topic so the topic
We are who we think we are, feel, behave like!!!
For me, it's better to be an Asian barbarian than ... yes, we are fine, but about the roots and other things, let the specialists have a headache.

[antivirus]

It's all the ugly guys' fault.
They surrendered Kyiv to the Poles.
And Pechenegs.
And the Khazars.
And the Kypchaks.
And crap.
And the Byzantines.
And Finno-Ugrians.
And Scythians with massagets.
And arias.
..........
Everything was not as we see it now and 200-300 years ago

[m_silenus]

First, Orthodoxy was adopted by the Bulgarians from Byzantium. And the Bulgarian khans began to call themselves kings. But since the service was conducted in the Greek language, incomprehensible to the people, a need arose from their own alphabet. It was created by the brothers Cyril and Methodius. Then their disciples translated the liturgical books from Greek into Old Bulgarian /then they began to call it "Church Slavonic"/, at the same time making improvements in the alphabet.
Kievan Rus adopted Orthodoxy from the Bulgarian preachers, at the same time accepting the alphabet along with books. This fact suggests that in those days the language spoken by people in this vast area was one or the local dialects were very close.

[cpls22]

Before the Cyrillic alphabet, there was a Glagolitic alphabet, completely unlike the creation of Cyril and Methodius. Writing on the territory of Rus' was before them. Just with the advent of a new religion, it was gradually lost. After all, monasteries were centers of literacy.

[m_silenus]

Here you are wrong. It was the Glagolitic alphabet that was created by the brothers. "Az, Buki, Lead, Verb, Good ..." and so on. But the lettering was complex, and the alphabet itself contained more symbols in an effort to cover all the nuances of the phonetics of the language. One of their students, Clement of Ohrid, together with his associates, founded the Ohrid School, where they translated and copied books. Although the alphabet is called "Cyrillic", it was they who modernized it and simplified the lettering. And the name remained in honor of the youngest of the brothers - Konstantin Kiril the Philosopher. Probably due to the fact that it was he who fought for the recognition of the alphabet by the Vatican on a par with Latin and Greek. By the way, "az" in Bulgarian still means "I".
By no means do I want to look for contradictions here. I just want to emphasize that we have a common history, and the forces known to us have since been trying to distort and divide the Slavic-speaking peoples.
And the role of Bulgaria is described in the words of a Bulgarian poet:
"Che and ny dared to give something to the world
and in all Slavs the book is read."

[solar]

This fact suggests that in those days the language spoken by people in this vast area was one

The general public did not speak Church Slavonic, it was the written language of the nobility, like Latin in Europe, they wrote it.
Everyone spoke their markedly different languages, in some areas even before the 19th century, look at Dahl's dictionary.
The literary Russian language created by Lomonosov and others and improved by Pushkin on the basis of the grammar of Church Slavonic and the lexicon of the Moscow dialect gradually became common to all.

[Luenkov]

"Moscow dialect",,, is also funny. Lomonosov was sitting in a bag for this tongue?

[nepunamemuk]

Varangians were one of the Slavic tribes
boiled salt and traded it

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote from: nepunamemuk

Varangians were one of the Slavic tribes
boiled salt and traded it

Anna, Queen of France, wrote to her father in Kyiv: - "I'm not afraid, because my Varangians are with me"
Was it the saltworkers and merchants guarding Anna? VARYAG is a professional warrior.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

The article is about nothing. Why post such rubbish. Oh, yes - but patriotically - these Swedes have already pulled up with their policies, they also claim the title of ancestors. But fuck them! According to some unknown "experts". not this way. And maybe. so. Basically they don't know.

[ee2100]

This question is not related to historical roots, but purely political.
Let the Varangians come to rule in Rus', but:
1. There was something to rule
2. In the annals it is written that the Varangians (the Varangian Sea) are the same as us.
I think that for a thinking person this is enough.
Vidos did not look.
Normans are generally fictional people. People of the north.
Chukchi - for example.
I treat them with respect.

[Gardamir]

the state of the Eastern Slavs was created by some Varangians or, as they are also called, the Normans.

Or maybe the Varangians and Normans are different peoples? Someone deliberately combined creating confusion.

[NG inform]

The Varangian is a profession, and the "Norman" is a bandit who sailed from Scandinavia. Both are not peoples.

[SVD68]

If you look at the tribes of the Eastern Slavs, it turns out that they are Western Slavs. And Vyatichi, and Radimichi, and glade, and Krivichi, and Slovenes. But who lived on the Russian Plain before their arrival? No, not Finno-Ugric. There lived tribes related to the Slavs in genetics and language - the heirs of the Corded Ware culture. Modern scientists call them Balts. For example, the golyad tribe. That's the same Baltic tribe was the Rus tribe. With a language similar to the Slavic languages ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbof aliens, with the god Perun. The mutual assimilation of the Western Slavs who came and the local Balts gave rise to the Eastern Slavs.

[Luenkov]

The assimilation of the Balts and Slavs is not an extreme case. Many linguists, archaeologists, laugh at those who are trying to find one original "tribe" where it cannot be.

[gromit]

As part of the de-Europeanization, Dr. Perevezentsea and Uzhankov are ready to record me as a North African, an ancient Jew, or four Baltics)

Well, let's rename Peter to Petrograd again. And at the same time we will prove that Catherine is not a German, but comes from Tula.
It was understood that we were fighting Ukrainian madness, and not repeating it.

[NG inform]

Quote from Gromit

It was understood that we were fighting Ukrainian madness, and not repeating it.

Great point, I'll keep it in mind.

[Eugene Zaboy]

Rather, the Normans came out, or originated, from Rus', than Rus' from Normandy. Even taking into account climate change (glacier retreat) - this theory looks untenable. The return of people to the Scandinavian Peninsula from the territory of modern Russia, by land, is more understandable. Hence there is a significant percentage of the population with Russian DNA. The legends of ancient Greece attribute the origin of the Greeks to the Persians (everything there is limited to the Perseids, even Hercules), which explains the wars between Ancient Greece and Persia. Everyone tried to unite the country in their own interests and on their own terms. The same can explain both the Swedish-Russian and Polish-Russian wars. The search for roots leads to the destruction of the roots. The only question is - who, whom and why pushes, or they themselves, from dope, foreheads converged.

[Senior seaman]

As the expert put it, Rus' was in Normandy

Where?

[NG inform]

Again historical freaks pulled themselves up. Why don't moderators remove brain thinners? Now is not the time to breed inadequate.

[Luenkov]

It was possible to drag counter-arguments to arm the population.

[Eugene Zaboy]

Freaks have brains melted or missing. They are unable to form their own opinion. Strange as it may sound, but the fight against pluralism of opinions reduces the number of supporters that are so necessary for the winner.

[Altmann]

Cyril and Methodius are Slavic saints who created writing on the territory of Bohemia, revered and having a national holiday. We are simply united by culture, religion, we have common roots. That's why they want to divide us, humiliate us and control us. We are one tribe, Russians, Bulgarians,
Guild. It was a glorious time of the "Great Moravian Empire". We must not allow ourselves to be divided and humiliated.

[Mint Gingerbread]

If you think logically, why would a self-sufficient people with a developed economy and an army suddenly need foreigners as management? Imagine that in Russia, a citizen of Norway was called to the presidency.

[Luenkov]

Mikhail Zadornov also raised the question and gave the answer in an incorrect interpretation of the story

[Bogalex]

Qualified "historian" Zadornov, right?

[Eugene Zaboy]

The concept of "Qualified "historian"" in itself is alarming. What is a qualified historian? This is a person who has made a discovery and is trying, on the basis of a historical artifact, a well-known event, a source, or a narrow period of time studied by him, to construct subjectively the entire history of the development of mankind. The work of qualified historians, regardless of their merits, must be approached with great caution.

[Bogalex]

Who is worried? You?
A qualified historian is a person who has the appropriate qualifications and has received a specialized education.
"Very carefully" it is necessary to approach just the same works of amateurs, who was Zadornov, trampling on the subject with the grace of an elephant in a porcelain shop.

[Eugene Zaboy]

It is a well-known fact that knowledge gained in the process of learning is not a sign of intelligence or giftedness. Memory training allows you to accumulate a significant amount of knowledge, but only a few, not necessarily champions in terms of accumulated volumes, can use the existing knowledge with talent. This is Einstein's paradox. A man with a relatively small brain, a loser, with a dubious education, is a universally recognized world genius. Why not those of his contemporaries who possessed an encyclopedic, brilliant knowledge compared to Einstein? Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that any person, regardless of education, is capable of a breakthrough in any field of science, and this is unpredictable due to the limited knowledge about the features of the brain. No need to bypass the grandfathers on the rubble and the grandmothers on the benches.

[Foul skeptic]

double student, with dubious education

Where does this nonsense come from?

[Eugene Zaboy]

Read the biography of Einstein. He did not fully graduate from any educational institution. His only diploma is also in question.

[Foul skeptic]

He did not fully graduate from any educational institution.

He did not finish only the gymnasium in Munich. But this does not mean, firstly, that the years of study in this gymnasium are not education or "doubtful" education. Secondly, he graduated from the gymnasium in Arrau, that is, he received a secondary education. And getting a diploma from a university from the top ten in the world is also a "doubtful" education?

[Eugene Zaboy]

The man could not graduate from the school where he studied. For admission to a higher educational institution, I received a certificate somewhere and somehow. With difficulty and not on the first attempt, he was enrolled in a university. This certainly and certainly characterizes him as a diligent student in your eyes? I do not belittle the merits of Einstein. But his education can not be called anything other than dubious and questionable for a scientist of this level. A dissertation on a piece of paper. Does it raise any questions for you? How does all this fit with the classical requirements and examples. Would he have been hired today in the best institutions with such results?

[Foul skeptic]

All your text is manipulative and juggling in every sentence.
Let me remind you, the beginning of the conversation

double student, with dubious education

1) Einstein had only one failure in a foreign language (French) for him. In algebra, geometry, physics in the gymnasium - the highest score. The average score, if we move from a 6-point system to the usual 5-point system, is 4,17. That is, it is not a doppelgänger.
2) Education took place in three well-known educational institutions. Not in the alley. That is, it is not doubtful. Or everyone who received certificates in these educational institutions should be recorded as those who received a dubious education.

For admission to a higher educational institution, I received a certificate somewhere and somehow.

Where is known. So not "somewhere". "Somehow" is not your personal guess.

With difficulty and not on the first attempt, he was enrolled in a university.

Did not enter the first time because of age and French. What does this have to do with the "doubtfulness" of previously acquired knowledge in an educational institution?

This certainly and certainly characterizes him as a diligent student in your eyes?

This, of course and certainly, is a distortion and a shift in emphasis from the fact of getting an education in educational institutions to personal qualities. Without taking into account the fact that Einstein's "non-diligence" for a teacher is quite understandable - a child who independently mastered the extremely small ones at the age of 12 is simply not interested in going through actions with fractions with the rest of the class, since learning is not individual and must be adjusted to everyone.

A dissertation on a piece of paper. Does it raise any questions for you?

1) Not on a piece of paper.
2) What makes you think that the mathematical model for 16 sheets is small or doubtful? Anikin so decided?

[Eugene Zaboy]

An unexpected twist. I also happen to be a manipulator. Let's go back to the source. What I wrote about Einstein: "] This is Einstein's paradox. A person with a relatively small brain volume, a loser, with a dubious education, is a universally recognized world genius." What is not true here? In black and white, an example of a world genius with a discrepancy with generally accepted standards is described. The example is given to the topic discussed above, not related to Einstein. Einstein really did not finish school, without a certificate he tried to enter a university and was not enrolled. He really had serious problems in a number of subjects, including negative assessments of teachers. A post-mortem autopsy showed a brain of less than one kilogram, which, to put it mildly, sounds unusual and breaks all the patterns regarding ideas about geniuses. It's more like the brain of a disabled person than a genius. Maybe that's why Einstein's brain was not studied, in accordance with generally accepted rules, but cut into pieces and forgotten. Einstein's brain researchers seem to
they were simply shocked by the unexpected result and quit their job. That is why I am talking about Einstein's paradox, a man who left an indelible mark on science with a fate atypical for a scientist. His dissertation can be easily explained by the inability to express thoughts, with brilliant abilities in mathematics. He was generally difficult to communicate with. Which is fully consistent with his problems at school. Einstein showed the tongue, and
Khrushchev pounded on the UN rostrum with his heel. Which one of us is the manipulator?

[Foul skeptic]

What is not true here?

The posts above are quite detailed.

In black and white, an example of a world genius with a discrepancy with generally accepted standards is described.

There are no universally accepted standards for world genius.

Post-mortem autopsy reveals less than one kilogram brain

This is not true.

Maybe that's why Einstein's brain wasn't studied.

This is not true

[Eugene Zaboy]

Einstein's example is given by me as a counterbalance to Zadornov's baseless criticism. "This is not true." is clearly not sufficient justification and is not proof. If there is other information, please provide a link.

[Eugene Zaboy]

Indeed, with the weight of the brain, I screwed up. I don't know where this got into my head. Nevertheless, the weight of Einstein's brain is indeed significantly less than the brain of the average person. Thus, in contrast to the assertion that Zadornov is not worth listening to just because he does not have a professional historical education, using Einstein's example is quite acceptable. Elon Musk is quite successful in rockets, cars, and now also social networks. Should he also be banned because of the lack of professional suitability in the form of a diploma?

[Foul skeptic]

It is interesting that the moderators found seditious in my comment that they decided to delete it ...

Nevertheless, the weight of Einstein's brain is indeed significantly less than the brain of the average person.

This is simply a misunderstanding of the "average" category. The fact that you read that the average human brain weighs 1400 grams only means that a normally formed organ weighs within X to Y grams, the average value of this series will be 1400. The reference range for men is 1180-1620 grams, for women 1030-1400 grams (according to the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology).

Thus, in contrast to the assertion that Zadornov is not worth listening to just because he does not have a professional historical education, using the example of Einstein perfectly acceptable.

Why? Einstein, unlike Zadornov, had a specialized education.

Elon Musk is quite successful in rockets, cars, and now also social networks. Should he also be banned because of the lack of professional suitability in the form of a diploma?

Elon Musk has an education and diplomas that confirm his qualifications in managing the development of technical projects.

[Eugene Zaboy]

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

Why? Einstein, unlike Zadornov, had a specialized education.

Albert Einstein
In the gymnasium (now the Albert Einstein Gymnasium [de] in Munich), he was not among the first students (the exception was mathematics and Latin).
Never having received his Abitur, in 1895 he joined his family in Pavia.
Having brilliantly proved himself in the mathematics exam, he at the same time failed the exams in botany and French, which did not allow him to enter the Zurich Polytechnic.
In September 1896, he successfully passed all the final exams at school, except for the French exam, and received a certificate, and in October 1896 he was admitted to the Polytechnic at the Faculty of Education.
Einstein graduated from the Polytechnic in 1900. received a diploma in mathematics and physics. He passed the exams successfully, but not brilliantly. Many professors highly appreciated the abilities of the student Einstein, but no one wanted to help him continue his scientific career.
Einstein worked at the Patent Office from July 1902 to October 1909, primarily as a peer reviewer of invention applications.
Diploma in teaching mathematics and physics and 7 years of work in the Patent Office, not in the specialty. In fact, this is a dequalification in the generally accepted sense. Nevertheless, after all this, Einstein becomes a world authority in theoretical physics. Why can't Zadornov express his opinion in the field of history, being from a hereditary family of teachers and having received an excellent education?
Musk, Elon
enrolled at Queens University in Kingston and two years later transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, where he received a bachelor's degree in economics and physics. Oops? Where are the rockets, where are the cars, where are the social networks and the Internet. Let's be objective.
Or what is possible for Einstein and Elon Musk is impossible for Zadornov. But this is discrediting on a national basis.

[Foul skeptic]

I can't understand why copying a sheet from Wikipedia.
Einstein studied mathematics and physics, having a background in mathematics and physics.
Musk runs companies with a degree in physics and economics. Does not develop new technologies and products, but manages those who develop.
Zadornov climbed into history and linguistics, without having a historical and linguistic education.
PS In order to evaluate patent applications, one must know physics.
PPS A rocket science education does not provide professional knowledge in history and linguistics.

[Eugene Zaboy]

Einstein is a teacher of mathematics and physics by education. He could have taught at school, or at best at the university, if he had been left in graduate school, but not left. For nine years he did not work in his specialty. There is no reason to assert that his expert assessments are related exclusively to physics. He had nothing to do with theoretical or experimental physics, but the journal publishes his article. The editor obviously had nothing to do if he read it at all and even published his article, or someone recommended publishing it. How did he, by and large, differ from Zadornov after 7 out of 9 years of work not in his specialty and without a specialized education. Exactly like Musk. Musk's main training is economics, theoretical physics was studied as an additional discipline and has nothing to do with theoretical or experimental physics, rockets and programming, and even more so with automotive engineering and even more so with management. So these people are in a very close weight category with Zadornov, who, in a family of hereditary intellectuals, could well have received excellent training in history, no worse than a professional one, naturally without a diploma. So it's still a question of who is better prepared, a student - a historian, a historical university, or Zadornov with a home historical, non-politicized education and an uncomplicated mind. I met doctors with many years of experience, they carried such nonsense that the jaw dropped.

[Foul skeptic]

Einstein is a teacher of mathematics and physics by education.

Imagine, in order to teach others, you need to know yourself.

There is no reason to assert that his expert assessments are related exclusively to physics.

He considered applications that were somehow related to the transmission of electrical signals and electromechanical time synchronization.

Musk's main training is economics, theoretical physics was studied as an additional discipline and has nothing to do with theoretical or experimental physics, rockets and programming, and even more so with automotive engineering and even more so with management.

Theoretical physics not related to theoretical physics is strong.
1) Do not invent. There is no primary or secondary discipline. These are two different directions and two different diplomas.
2) And also the Wharton School of Business and internships at the Pinnacle Research Institute and Palo Alto.
3) Yes, physics has nothing to do with rockets and cars (sarcasm)
4) Programming... At the age of 12 Musk SOLD his own computer game.

So these people are in a very close weight category with Zadornov

And not close.

So it's still a question of who is better prepared, a student - a historian, a historical university, or Zadornov with a home historical, non-politicized education and an uncomplicated mind.

There is no question here. You are ready to come up with a "home historical" education for Zadornov, if only to justify his pseudo-historical and pseudo-linguistic nonsense.

[Eugene Zaboy]

Quote: Vile skeptic [i

]Imagine, in order to teach others, you need to know yourself[/i].

In order to know yourself and teach others, you need to unlearn at the department in graduate school for another 3 years. This is a normal practice, generally accepted. Therefore, Einstein was upset that he was not left for further education at the university. If the lectures would not be skipped, then maybe they would have left. But! Who needs a teacher who doesn't show up for a lecture? You can imagine that the lecturer didn't show up to an audience full of students. He was just very lucky and someone supported him. How many of these geniuses have disappeared without revealing We will never know.

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

He considered applications that were somehow related to the transmission of electrical signals and electromechanical time synchronization..

Did he tell you personally? My daughter is studying at the University right now, just doing the second discipline, like Elon Musk, so I know what I'm talking about.

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

There is no question here. You are ready to come up with a "home historical" education for Zadornov, if only to justify his pseudo-historical and pseudo-linguistic nonsense.

Read above how you justify Einstein and Elon Musk. Just because you like your version. And if the editor of a magazine were to send Einstein's manuscript to the wastebasket, would you defend it too? An unknown clerk who spent his whole life putting someone's inventions on the shelves. Such a scenario, for Einstein's track record, is more likely than the miracle that happened to him. You dismiss all objective criteria for selecting students, emphasizing his genius, which no one knew about when he studied. From the general mass of students, Einstein did not stand out for the better. An ordinary average student, and even a truant. Or is it the dignity of a genius. Usually they are expelled for absenteeism, not allowing them to take exams.

[Foul skeptic]

In order to know yourself and teach others, you need to unlearn at the department in graduate school for another 3 years. This is a normal practice, generally accepted.

1) Postgraduate studies enable a young scientist to engage in scientific work, using university resources. And not because graduate school is the path to teaching at a university. I’ll tell you a terrible secret, you can teach at a university without postgraduate studies.
2) A teaching diploma means that a person can teach. This means that the university that issued such a diploma confirms that a person has knowledge in a particular area. It doesn't matter if the holder of a diploma wants to teach or not, it is important that he has knowledge in a volume sufficient to transfer to other people.

Did he tell you personally?

This is what his biographers said.

My daughter is studying at the University right now, just doing the second discipline, like Elon Musk, so I know what I'm talking about.

What's up with your daughter?

Read above how you justify Einstein and Elon Musk.

Where did you see the justification? Justification for what? The fact that they have a specialized education and their field of activity is related to their profile? This is a statement of fact. The justification is when they come up with a "home historical education".

[Eugene Zaboy]

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

I will reveal a terrible secret, you can teach at a university without graduate school.[/i]

Have you personally met this? If yes, where?
In fact, decent universities respect themselves and without a degree it is almost impossible to find a teacher there.

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

This is what his biographers said.

Really?

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

What's up with your daughter?

You argued that the second education is obtained by repeated training. I say that it is enough to pass a few subjects at the request of the university, and not take a full course of study.

[Foul skeptic]

Have you personally met this? If yes, where?

What does where mean? Are you kidding me? Everywhere. The race for universities for degrees began in Russia ONLY since 1996. It has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. There is a gradation of teachers at the university - assistant, senior lecturer, associate professor, professor. The requirements for the first two are only teaching experience (a year or three, even at school). For the second pair, scientific work is needed. Which, in addition to universities, is conducted, for example, in research institutes. Where for qualifications 1 and 2, only experience is also enough. Was he clear enough?

Really?

Imagine.

You argued that the second education is obtained by repeated training.

WHERE?!?! Here is what I wrote in response to nonsense about the "main and non-mainstream"

Don't think. There is no primary or secondary discipline. These are two different directions and two different diplomas.

[Eugene Zaboy]

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

There is a gradation of teachers at the university - assistant, senior lecturer, associate professor, professor. The requirements for the first two are only teaching experience (a year or three, even at school). For the second pair, scientific work is needed. Which, in addition to universities, is conducted, for example, in research institutes. Where for qualifications 1 and 2, only experience is also enough. Was he clear enough?

Russia is big and perhaps we went in different ways. Where I have been and my friends, graduate students, at best, they were allowed to practice, not systematically. This was long before 2006. Perhaps that is why We do not understand each other, talking from different bell towers.

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

Don't think. There is no primary or secondary discipline. These are two different directions and two different diplomas.

Western universities issue a second diploma to a student on the condition and consent to pass and successfully pass the minimum required set of disciplines. Not a complete course. Moreover, each university in the West has its own requirements and its own set is not unified. But the diploma is real everywhere.

[Eugene Zaboy]

Quote from Eugene Zaboy

What's up with your daughter?

Despite the fact that next year she will receive those same two diplomas.

[Eugene Zaboy]

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

Einstein studied mathematics and physics, having a background in mathematics and physics.

Why do physicists actually wear Einstein in their arms and call him a genius. He gave them work. While other, conscientious scientists were looking for explanations for all the inexplicable physical processes, Einstein introduced variables to make the formulas work. Until it exploded and it works. This allowed physicists to beat out huge money from governments and live well, for which they are grateful to the risky Einstein. If it explodes, they will point a finger at him, and they themselves will be on the sidelines. For this, an indisputable, brilliant authority is needed. Nevertheless, he is really brilliant, if so far all this is somehow consistent despite the huge amount of inexplicable.

[Luenkov]

Zadornov attracted people and had a sharp mind. By the way, his knowledge could be at a level higher than those who are considered historians. I spoke personally..

[Bogalex]

His knowledge was not above the level of "those who are considered historians." Moreover, they did not even reach the student level.
And the fact that you talked to him personally does not change that.

[Luenkov]

The student level is like the height of the fence. Experts "that's how Chubais was singled out as a great power engineer, did this Tolik have a level? I prefer to talk about what I know.

[Bogalex]

Well, yes. And please tell me, representatives of which dynasty today head, for example, the royal house of Great Britain? English?

[Luenkov]

[quote] Thus, in his opinion, it is rather a debatable concept that is not tied to a specific ethnic group./quote] Russian is by no means an "original" ethnic group, a polyethnonym has been and remains until now. The indicated authors-scholars are unlikely to understand the text of the "temporal tale" themselves; they saw it, etc. "The origin of Russia from the Normans"? The very formulation of the question is not correct and shows through the lack of understanding of the Russian paradigm.

[Bogalex]

Yes, how much can you trample on this topic, exploiting the illiteracy of the layman!
Well, read already, please, "Dispute about the Varangians" by S. Klein. Well, everything is already written there, what more?

[Sancho_SP]

Why bother with this origin? We are who we are. Excuses are not needed.

[Force multiplier]

Alexander Uzhankov, who recalled that the Tale of Bygone Years says that the descendants of Noah the Righteous lived in Rus', that is, the biblical people.
Uzhankov also noted that in the ancient Russian chronicles there is such a wording: “language means people and speech”

Wikipedia:
Uzhankov, Alexander Nikolaevich - Born on June 18, 1955 in the city of Shchors, Chernihiv region in Ukraine. In 1980 he graduated from the Russian Department of the Faculty of Philology of Lviv State University. I. Franko

All clear

[Peaceful Basmach]

I recommend reading Grigory Sidorov! Everything is described there, how and where the Slavs came from!

[Private SA]

Quote from cold wind

In general, what difference does it make for Russia where Rus' came from? These formations do not coincide not territorially, not mentally, not by national composition,

I removed one of the minuses for you, remembering Alexander Blok's poem "Scythians":
"Millions of you. We are darkness, and darkness, and darkness.
Try to fight us.
Yes we are Scythians, yes we are Asians
with slanting and greedy eyes!"
PS And my cheekbones are Mongolian, and my eyes instantly reflect the sun in the snow
are narrowing and tears are flowing... But I am Soviet.

[Leader_Barmaleev]

Nnndaaa... How easy, it turns out, to start the process of boiling known substances... History is not a science, history is an interpretation of events, often fictitious, or repeatedly distorted. I don't know what really happened, but I know exactly what didn't happen. Let's start with Nestor - today there is not a single evidence written by Nestor himself, there are only later retellings "based on" Moreover, Nestor and Herodotus are related by the fact that again, judging by the retellings both were the first science fiction writers - before Herodotus, no one knew anything about Atlantis, before Nestor, no one had heard anything about Rurik, moreover, there is not a single documentary evidence that it was they who spoke about these phenomena, and not at all other interested persons. Not for nothing that V.I. Lenin wrote on his website - The main feature of quotes from the Internet is that you believe them immediately and unconditionally! Summary - it does not matter, from the word absolutely, what was and what was not, only what is important is what is now. What do we hold in our hands and what can we hold. If we hold it, we will write the necessary story; if we don’t hold it, they will write it for us. That's all.

[Z_G_R]

You can not waste time on these arguments. We don't know anything about the past at all. Each ruler wrote his own history. The Norman theory was given to us by the Germans (Bayer, Miller, Schletzer) under the German Catherine. That's how we live.

[venaya]

I agree that the "Normans" are just northerners and nothing else, it's just that in this name they used a term from another, later language, as it is now called the language of the Germanic language group. Such a substitution of concepts, interfering with terms from different languages, is often used to confuse, obscure the topics under discussion. Unfortunately, this is a widely used practice in historical science, as it were.

[katarsafebox.com]

What difference does it make who the leader of the mercenary gang was? Vaughn, Jacomom Attendolo was from a middle-class landowner's family, so what?

[Vladimir Mikhalev]

Nestor, according to the concepts of that time, wrote everything perfectly. Of course, one must enter into the position when he wrote. He wrote his treatise from the Roman chronicles, which unfortunately burned down in a fire in Moscow.

[Mint Gingerbread]

Here they ask, what difference does it make who. People who do not know their past have no future.

[Report card]

"The version with the Norman origin of the Slavs is extremely controversial."

Vasily Volkov.
Reread what you have written.
"The version with the Norman origin of the Slavs is extremely contradictory."...

Who and in what nightmares put forward a "version" about the origin of the Slavs (Czechs, Croats, Bulgarians, etc.) from the Normans?
Nobody anywhere and ever.
Only Vasily Volkov put forward a "controversial version" on this resource. The Slavs descended from the Normans ... Here are those on ... Contradictory? Of course ... "experts" will confirm ...
Of course, we are talking about the origins of statehood in Rus' and the ethnic composition of the Russian elite.
There is enough material here. We have the archeology of the excavations of silver coins of the Baghdad Caliphate of the era of the formation of the statehood of Rus'. We have a river route from Scandinavia (where these coins are) through the Neva and Ladoga to the Volkhov River, the source of which is at Lake Ilmen near Novgorod. From Ilmen we have a path to the Volga, and there already Baghdad. We have a Baghdad post office and customs, where there are documents relating to the ancient Rus. We have documents of the Carolingian Empire.
In general, the Rus live in the headquarters on the "island" (the Arabic meaning is ambiguous) among the swamps. We look at the "island" at the source of the Volkhov, we dig this island, we find a classic Scandinavian settlement. They hid there from the locals. And they not only hid, but lived, made friends, fought for generations.
Until order, statehood, security came.
And we read the names and surnames of these Varangians in the first treaty between Byzantium and Russia.
At the same time, the people moved from the swampy island to Novgorod. It is on the other side of the Volkhov branch. There, traces of Scandinavian brooches are no longer found en masse...

[Thomas the Unbelieving]

I found the best answer on this problem from Igor Guberman:
We are already visible for centuries
indistinguishable in detail,
And only the historian is given
The ability to lie documented.
And in general, I have always been tormented by questions to which I do not know the answer: 1. Can the head of a primitive community make his descendants slaves? 2. Where did the Romans go when feudal lords appeared on the territory of their empire. 3. What happened to the Anglo-Saxons when William the Conqueror divided England between his Norman knights and why was Hamlet a Danish prince in England? 4. Where did the tribes and civilizations we heard about go?
Not everything is clear about our country either. For example, why did Tatyana write a letter to Onegin in French, but at the court of Nicholas 1 they spoke German. The impression is that the upper classes almost always spoke one language, and the lower classes spoke another.

[Bayun]

The Normans are savages in comparison with the highly developed culture in Rus' of the "old people".

"Norman theory" - nonsense and game! It's like saying that the French are descended from Africans. Although I won’t be surprised if soon they write exactly that in books on the history of France ...

[poquello]

a stupid article, fans of the first-generation versions are not able to explain their arguments, and their comments easily fit into two main, and not contradictory, unscientific versions about proto-Rus and the Norman one itself.

"As the expert put it, Rus' was in Normandy, but at the same time, there were as many as four Russ in the Baltic states, and a certain "Rusika" was even in North Africa. Thus, in his opinion, this is more of a debatable concept that is not tied to certain ethnic group."

the theory of proto-Rus is based on numerous inscriptions "Rus-araya" in pm on ancient Egyptian statues and objects, the presence of ancient runes that are not characteristic of Scandinavian ones in pm in Scandinavia itself, only the conclusion turns out that not quite those Scandinavians who remained there lived in Scandinavia,

"The Varangian prince Rurik, who is credited with creating statehood in Rus', for some reason founded a city with the Slavic name Novgorod, spoke the Slavic language and worshiped the Slavic gods: Perun and Veles. Thus, his Norman origin is also in question."

if "by word of mouth" these are legends, then there is nothing to talk about, then Pervezentsev does not care to croak, because there are the words of Prince Oleg in Constantinople, and if we are trying to build a logical structure, then it would not hurt the doctor to know that Rurik is Russian and his grandson mother of the head of the Ladoga tribe Gostomysl, called to rule according to the testament of the dying grandfather

[EFIM LYUBIN]

Commentators, find the journal "Genetics in the USSR" 4th issue (April) for 1980. There there is an article about the origin and resettlement of the Caucasoid and Mongoloid races. The article is based on the research of Soviet and American geneticists. Very interesting information on this issue!

[tabex]

Doesn't the expert philologist explain the origin of these names there?

... In the year 6420 (912). Oleg sent his husbands to make peace and establish an agreement between the Greeks and Russians, saying this:
"List from the treaty concluded under the same kings Leo and Alexander.
We are from the Russian family - Karla, Inegeld, Farlaf, Veremud, Rulav, Gudy, Ruald, Karn, Frelav, Ruar, Aktevu, Truan, Lidul, Fost, Stemid

[Eugene Zaboy]

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

The fact that they have a specialized education

Since when did a teacher of mathematics and physics become a theoretical physicist? Or a physicist, on the second specialization became a programmer and even more so a manager? You have strange ideas about education. In the end, it's no longer interesting. You are wasting your time.

[Foul skeptic]

You are wasting your time

That's the only thing you're right about - I'm really wasting my time on you. And it's a pointless waste.